This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the doctrine that the right to appeal is a statutory right, and one who seeks to avail of said right must comply with the applicable statute or rules thereon. The NLRC Rules, akin to the Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law; and these NLRC Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays, and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[9] Thus, petitioners are required to perfect their appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law, and failure to do so rendered the judgment of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.[10] | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In cases involving a monetary award, an employer seeking to appeal the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC is unconditionally required by Article 223[22] of the Labor Code to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award adjudged.[23] It should be stressed that the intention of lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.[24] The word "only" makes it perfectly clear that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected.[25] Moreover, it bears stressing that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional,[26] and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.[27] It cannot be overemphasized that the NLRC Rules, akin to the Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law.[28] | |||||
|
2005-06-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| However, whatever merit Sameer's case may have had, it cannot escape the fact that it inexcusably failed to perfect its appeal within the mandated reglementary period, and thus should suffer the consequences for such failure. We cannot respond with alacrity to every clamor of injustice and bend the rules to placate a vociferous protestor crying and claiming to be a victim of a wrong. It is only in highly meritorious cases that this Court opts not to strictly apply the rules and thus prevent a grave injustice from being done.[16] This is not one of those cases. | |||||
|
2005-02-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the issue on whether Times perfected its appeal to the NLRC, the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the statute or rules. The rules for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business.[17] Section 3(a), Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure outlines the requisites for perfecting an appeal, to wit:SECTION 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. a) The Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule and shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, order or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal. | |||||